THE YOUNG SCIENTIST. 
51 
as in these days, when amateurs are making 
telephones, telegraphs, engines, etc., for 
their own use and for experiment, it may 
be well to tell our readers clearly and dis- 
tinctly just how far they may go in this 
direction.* 
The real state of the case, then, is that, 
according to the strict letter of the law, no 
person not authorized by the patentee or 
his representative, has any right to make a 
patented article for any purpose whatever. 
Those who make such articles are liable to 
be enjoined by the courts from further mak- 
ing or using them, if the patent has been 
properly sustained, and they are also liable 
to an action for damages. But unless actual 
damage has been inflicted upon the owner 
of the patent, it is very unlikely that any 
legal action would be taken, for if the 
patentee did take legal action, it would in- 
volve him in great trouble and expense, 
without any return whatever. This applies 
to cases where the advantages derived from 
the use of the invention are of a mere in- 
tellectual kind, but when the invention has 
*In giving the advice which follows, we have 
considered not only the legal rights of the patentee, 
but the equitable rights of the public. Every 
patent is a bargain between the public and the 
inventor, in which the former agrees to give the 
latter all the profits arising from the invention dur- 
ing a certain period, provided the inventor will 
give the public the full benefit of all the knowledge 
and skill which he possesses in relation to the par- 
ticular invention on hand. The fact that patents 
are always issued to the first inventor, and that 
there is scarcely any invention that has not been 
brought out at nearly the same time by several 
inventors, one of whom gets all the benefit to the 
exclusion of the others, constitutes every patent a 
species of robbery of all those who have the ability 
to devise for themselves, but who have not brought 
their inventions before the public. This partial 
evil and injustice must, however, be submitted to 
by the few for the good of the many. Exclusive 
property in any invention is therefore a legal and 
not a moral right. No man has a moral right to 
prevent me from using my brains in making any 
invention to which I am competent. It is only 
those who deal in buncombe who assert that any 
naan has, on moral grounds, any exclusive right to 
his invention. The only rights that any inventor 
can have, if we exclude those which he obtains by 
law in virtue of his bargain with the public, is to 
practice his invention in security, and keep it secret 
as long as he can. But the people, having, through 
their representatives, agreed to give the patentee 
the benefits to be derived from the exclusive use 
of the invention during a certain period, are mor- 
ally, as well as legally, bound to hold to this con- 
tract. 
: been put in practice to the pecuniary profit 
of the infringer, damages may be collected, 
and a suit would probably be instituted. 
Let us take the case of the telephone, for 
example. If some commercial or manufac- 
turing house were to construct one or more 
pairs of telephones for the purpose of com- 
municating between different parts of their 
establishment, they would be liable to an 
action for damages, because they would be 
deriving a substantial benefit from the use 
of the invention. But if some amateur 
were to construct a telephone for his own 
amusement, and for the purpose of study- 
ing the phenomena of magneto-electricity 
and sound, no damage would be done to 
the patentee, and as no court would award 
damages, it is not likely that the patentee 
would be so foolish as to institute a suit. 
If, however, these amateur telephones were 
used for purposes of public exhibition, the 
inventor would sustain damage, and would 
very likely bring a suit, since telephone ex- 
hibitions are an actual source of profit ta 
the manufacturers. 
It has been alleged that the use of an 
invention for scientific purposes is not an 
infringement in the legal sense, but this 
depends entirely upon circumstances. The 
whole question turns upon the amount of 
pecuniary advantage derived by the in- 
fringer, and the loss sustained by the 
patentee. We believe that even the use of 
an unlicensed telephone by a college pro- 
fessor, for purposes of public instruction, 
would lay him liable to an action; and since 
in this case the instrument is employed for 
pecuniary profit, its use is morally wrong, 
being in violation of the spirit of the con- 
tract existing between the public and the 
inventor. 
Our readers will readily see then that 
whenever they construct any patented arti- 
cle, and apply it to any purpose which is to 
their pecuniary advantage, they commit a 
wrong legally and morally. But when the 
instrument is made and used wholly for 
intellectual purposes, and in such a way as 
not to work injury to the inventor, they are 
perfectly safe. 
